Brexit talks on the verge of collapse - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15142881
In my years of being conscious of politics, I’ve observed many terrible mistakes. Suez was a catastrophe, but Anthony Eden and many of his cabinet did believe it was the right thing to do. Labour’s nationalisations of industry — pretty disastrous — were pursued in the belief that socialism would work. The Tory poll tax was an awful idea but its cabinet and parliamentary cheerleaders honestly thought it would prove fair and workable. The Iraq and the Afghan occupations were a costly blunder but I’ve never doubted that Tony Blair believed he was taking the morally right course. David Cameron really expected we could make Libya a better place.

The point actually is that they all believed that what they were doing served British interests somehow, while BoJo and his government either just don't believe that or more likely they knowingly hurt British interests because that's the price of their current status and power. However, that's what the British people really want and voted for, isn't it? Get Brexit done and take back control.

Image
#15142903
Atlantis wrote:The level playing field is important because the UK wants to deregulate to undercut EU competitors (unfairly subsidize domestic industry, reduce corporate tax, etc.). If that happens, the EU has to put up trade barriers to protect against unfair competition. That has nothing to do with punishment.


Unless one has a very clear concept of what "undercutting competition" actually means, this is a free pass for violating national sovereignty. I would argue it only becomes an issue when particular sectors are being subsidized or protected, because then it doesn't balance out over the exchange rate. China subsidizing its solar panel industry for example wouldn't be a problem if solar panels were the only good being traded*. But with solar panels becoming very cheap relative to all other goods, this causes problems for the solar panel industry outside China, since it faces the same costs as other industries at home (e.g. labor costs).

*Well then it wouldn't be a trade, so I guess this is a bit trivial. :lol:
#15143004
Rugoz wrote:Unless one has a very clear concept of what "undercutting competition" actually means, this is a free pass for violating national sovereignty. I would argue it only becomes an issue when particular sectors are being subsidized or protected, because then it doesn't balance out over the exchange rate. China subsidizing its solar panel industry for example wouldn't be a problem if solar panels were the only good being traded*. But with solar panels becoming very cheap relative to all other goods, this causes problems for the solar panel industry outside China, since it faces the same costs as other industries at home (e.g. labor costs).

*Well then it wouldn't be a trade, so I guess this is a bit trivial. :lol:


One could argue that all trade is a "violation of national sovereignty. That poses a basic dilemma for a country like the UK that prides itself on being a big trading nation while demanding to take back control it had to cede for trading.

The more we open the borders to trade, the more we need rules to protect national interests. A concrete idea of "national interests" is more useful than an abstract idea of "national sovereignty" most people don't understand anyways. Even trade under the WTO requires rules on state subsidies and the like. If we dismantle all customs barriers as in the EU single market, we need even more rules all members have to adhere to. That includes rules that may be decided in the future. Unless the UK accepts that, it cannot have "frictionless trade" with the single market.

In theory, it may be that the exchange rate will level out imbalances in trade. In reality, most countries try to tweak the rules to their own advantage.
#15143005
UK can choose frictionless imports, it can't choose frictionless exports.

If you read what Minford had in mind then it is exactly this. Switch to a service based economy and lower standards to allow cheaper import of goods. Forget manufacturing and home production where it can be done cheaper abroad.

I find this a frightening proposition, but for free marketeers it's the endgame.
#15143075
BeesKnee5 wrote:UK can choose frictionless imports, it can't choose frictionless exports.

If you read what Minford had in mind then it is exactly this. Switch to a service based economy and lower standards to allow cheaper import of goods. Forget manufacturing and home production where it can be done cheaper abroad.

I find this a frightening proposition, but for free marketeers it's the endgame.


The Brexitters' talk about reducing import tariffs to zero is just baseless bluster. It would destroy what little remains of UK manufacturing and farming. When it comes to hammer out the nitty-gritty of trade deals, the UK will fight tooth and nails to protect domestic industry and drop all that vacuous rhetoric.

It is true that profit margins can be higher in trade/financing than in manufacturing, but you can't just chose to be a trading hub. It's either geographical or geopolitical factors that make a place a trading hub. London is no longer the center of an empire, nor is it situated on a trading routes. It can be circumvented.

If the UK were to keep unlimited access to the single market and if the EU would let the UK undercut European companies by a race to the bottom, it could still remain a trading hub. But why should the EU want its economy and social systems destroyed just to pamper the Brits?
#15143144
Atlantis wrote:The Brexitters' talk about reducing import tariffs to zero is just baseless bluster. It would destroy what little remains of UK manufacturing and farming. When it comes to hammer out the nitty-gritty of trade deals, the UK will fight tooth and nails to protect domestic industry and drop all that vacuous rhetoric.


:eh:

Zero tariffs can be expected either way.
#15143156
BeesKnee5 wrote:If you read what Minford had in mind then it is exactly this. Switch to a service based economy and lower standards to allow cheaper import of goods. Forget manufacturing and home production where it can be done cheaper abroad.

I find this a frightening proposition, but for free marketeers it's the endgame.


I can't say I have read him. But what I can say is this is the reason for social-economic decline and a contradiction in capitalism that may well be the reason for its ultimate demise. If the objective is to turn the UK into a huge warehouse, then all you are doing is moving your wealth out of your shores. Sometimes I worry about the sanity of Brexiteers given their obsession of zero tariff trade deals to everyone when really the objective should be to return manufacturing back home. It's one of the reasons I don't mind a weak pound as it happens.
#15143172
B0ycey wrote:I can't say I have read him. But what I can say is this is the reason for social-economic decline and a contradiction in capitalism that may well be the reason for its ultimate demise. If the objective is to turn the UK into a huge warehouse, then all you are doing is moving your wealth out of your shores. Sometimes I worry about the sanity of Brexiteers given their obsession of zero tariff trade deals to everyone when really the objective should be to return manufacturing back home. It's one of the reasons I don't mind a weak pound as it happens.

The Brexiteers are completely sane. They have absolutely no interest in returning manufacturing back home, nor do they care about the well-being or prosperity of the majority of their fellow countrymen. They care about their own bank balance, and that's all they care about. If they could make millions by turning the UK into nothing more than a huge off-shore warehouse, then that is exactly what they will seek to do. And they could, and it is. Lol.
#15143205
Potemkin wrote:The Brexiteers are completely sane. They have absolutely no interest in returning manufacturing back home, nor do they care about the well-being or prosperity of the majority of their fellow countrymen. They care about their own bank balance, and that's all they care about. If they could make millions by turning the UK into nothing more than a huge off-shore warehouse, then that is exactly what they will seek to do. And they could, and it is. Lol.


Boris just conceded to most European positions. Long story short, if the deal is going to be signed then UK is basically going to be forced to follow EU rules the alternative of which will be heavy sanctions if they diverge from anything. Basically UK is going to follow our rules without having any impact on the decision making or having any voting power.

So instead of a full blown member of the EU, Britain is becoming a... how did the British call that kind of countries... ah yes, a dominion of the EU.

May be we will promote the UK to the realm status eventually.
#15143277
They have agreed to a level playing field @JohnRawls. That is if they don't follow EU standards (amongst other things) and it has an advantage, then some form of tariff can be applied to rectify it. Which they can recipicate if vice versa. So they won't be forced to do anything. Or as Leyen says... Sovereign.
#15143279
B0ycey wrote:They have agreed to a level playing field @JohnRawls. That is if they don't follow EU standards (amongst other things) and it has an advantage, then some form of tariff can be applied to rectify it. Which they can recipicate if vice versa. So they won't be forced to do anything. Or as Leyen says... Sovereign.


To simplify the question or mechanic:
1) Choice one is that EU and UK can do anything but that means defaulting to WTO rules/tariffs and then doing whatever they want. Both sides do not want this because its economic harm for both. More for UK though in "per capita" terms.
2) Choice two is that EU and UK establish some kind of mechanism to manage competitiveness between the two and allow some divergence but that is a fancy name to maintain the status quo because as soon as UK will try to diverge then EU will start slapping tariffs. Or if UK does something fishy. Obviously the default scenario will be very similar to what we have right now and both sides will continue from there. It is a mechanism for UK to maintain face and the status quo.

Institutions and agreements usually serve a purpose. I am pretty sure an institutions that was proposed by the EU will serve the purpose of the EU and not the UKs. :roll: Theoretically if Johnson or the Tories want to be malignant actors then they can try to diverge 1 sector/product at a time and should provide more political clout for them. Overall it is a shit idea though.
#15143291
JohnRawls wrote:Theoretically if Johnson or the Tories want to be malignant actors then they can try to diverge 1 sector/product at a time and should provide more political clout for them. Overall it is a shit idea though.


That's not "if", John, they are a malignant actors! Johnsons knows that, the EU knows that, Johnson knows that the EU knows ... That's why contractual clauses are formulated so as to prevent future violations.

The whole idea of Brexit is for the UK to deregulate in order to undercut European companies/economies in a race to the bottom. Brexit doesn't make any sense otherwise.
Unless the EU is willing to sacrifice its social systems on the altar of British neoliberalism, it cannot follow the UK in the race to the bottom.

Don't underestimate EU trade negotiators. They are not the bungling Mandarins of imperial China who failed at ever step when confronted by a handful of British marauders. No, the EU has handled the Brexit talks very well. To EU negotiators, it would be easy to devise contractual clauses that'll bind the British to the level playing field with something like the Guillotine Clause the EU has in its deals with Switzerland:

A guillotine clause is a stipulation that an adoption of a contract package depends on the adoption of all of the individual treaties or contracts included. Under the guillotine clause, if only one treaty or contract is either not accepted by an involved party or canceled later, all treaties or contracts are then deemed not accepted or terminated.
#15143297
JohnRawls wrote:To simplify the question or mechanic:
1) Choice one is that EU and UK can do anything but that means defaulting to WTO rules/tariffs and then doing whatever they want. Both sides do not want this because its economic harm for both. More for UK though in "per capita" terms.
2) Choice two is that EU and UK establish some kind of mechanism to manage competitiveness between the two and allow some divergence but that is a fancy name to maintain the status quo because as soon as UK will try to diverge then EU will start slapping tariffs. Or if UK does something fishy. Obviously the default scenario will be very similar to what we have right now and both sides will continue from there. It is a mechanism for UK to maintain face and the status quo.

Institutions and agreements usually serve a purpose. I am pretty sure an institutions that was proposed by the EU will serve the purpose of the EU and not the UKs. :roll: Theoretically if Johnson or the Tories want to be malignant actors then they can try to diverge 1 sector/product at a time and should provide more political clout for them. Overall it is a shit idea though.


It's more simple than that. It is just a realignment should there be any competitive advantage in the future. Besides, I don't think tariffs are a major issue in trade anyway and if you don't, this doesn't matter in any case. I would rather keep relationships between European nations friendly then worry whether a hypothecial recipical tariff maybe placed on fish because we diverged on a green issue or two. Although, chances are we may just follow the EU anyway given our standards are the same if not better in specific areas.
#15143330
John le Carré was a romantic patriot of the old England. In his last interview before his death, he laments the narrow nationalism of today's Britain and expresses his estrangement from the country he used to identify with.

"What really scares me about nostalgia is that it's become a political weapon. Politicians are creating a nostalgia for an England that never existed, and selling it, really, as something we could return to."

The Brexitters created a nostalgia for a Britain that never existed and fooled people into believing they could return to this fantasy.

It must be bitter to die in the knowledge that the country you identified with no longer exists. But then, we all have to make that last journey alone.
#15143372
Atlantis wrote:John le Carré was a romantic patriot of the old England. In his last interview before his death, he laments the narrow nationalism of today's Britain and expresses his estrangement from the country he used to identify with.

"What really scares me about nostalgia is that it's become a political weapon. Politicians are creating a nostalgia for an England that never existed, and selling it, really, as something we could return to."

The Brexitters created a nostalgia for a Britain that never existed and fooled people into believing they could return to this fantasy.

It must be bitter to die in the knowledge that the country you identified with no longer exists. But then, we all have to make that last journey alone.

John le Carre always hated that narrow "Little Englander" mentality. Even his nom de plume was chosen as a calculated middle-finger to such people, in exactly the same way that the German artist Helmut Herzfeld changed his name to John Heartfield during World War I. Lol.

In truth, it's not so much that the England which John le Carre loved no longer exists as that it never existed. And, deep down, he knew it.
#15143374
I support no deal. Britain shouldn't bow to EU's central command. International Britain, which Johnson promised to deliver, must be able to do trade on his own terms. Business decisions should be made by people, not by EU's bureaucratic bodies. British government should support business enviroment with tax cuts and deregulations.
#15143385
Tax cuts and deregulations make the profits of rich people explode, but they wont fix a poor economy, and they wont fix external trade either.
#15143396
Negotiator wrote:Tax cuts and deregulations make the profits of rich people explode, but they wont fix a poor economy, and they wont fix external trade either.

There is no problem with rich people get richer. Rich people establish corporations which employ so many people. They will employ more people if their profits increase. Tax cuts and degulations make this affordable. UK companies can have a comparable advantage with this way. Also, it will incentive foreign companies to move their business operations to the UK benefit from the same advantage British companies use.

There are so many opportunities out there if one can see. British can top the world as a world leader of freedom and free markets. Americans go backwards with Biden incoming to destroy American dream.
#15143400
The UK is already the most competitive in terms of tax both in the mainland as well as in the several off-shore territories but now it no longer has access to the EU market.

Funny you say all that while Turkey is actively trying to get more access in the EU market. Seems like you are hoping to replace the UK and you could have if you were not run like Islamic extremists bent on territorial expansion.

Ironic in many ways.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 11

Everything is structured to shrink the American mi[…]

How to deal with Trump?

You don't see a contradiction between these goals[…]

5.3 million vaccines where given just this weekend[…]

Atheism is Evil

Because you can't have cops everywhere, and you w[…]